Imagine a system of education in which young men are brought together in prayer and taught doctrine, given over to physical training and team sports after studies, and then put into military discipline as they get older. Something like that would work well with the prospective system I outlined in my series on teaching.
The great opportunity to revive the militia was 9/11. 9/11 proved that we cannot rely on dialing 911 in the event of an outlier emergency.
If we hadn't been conditioned to defer to the experts for defense, the 9/11 hijackers would have need more than box cutters to take over planes.
And even today, the alternative to the awful security theater we undergo at airports is to have a large body of civilian air marshals. That is, frequent air travelers who have been vetted and trained to carry weapons on aircraft, but are not paid other than perhaps a small discount on airfare.
...masculine men increasingly do not want to be mistaken for homosexuals, so they withdraw from each other.
I never thought about it that way, but it's absolutely true. Close male friendships are weird. Hanging out with another man one on one is creepy. No wonder men want to kill themselves.
I agree with most of this article. But I still think the militia is insufficient for modern defense because certain crucial roles require highly specialized training and infrastructure. I’m thinking rocket artillery platforms and most modern aircraft.
Great read. However, I stray from your assertion regarding modern conservatism. Rigid? somewhat. If you mean it emphasizes the importance of tradition, stability, and social order. Conservatives draw upon these principles to argue for preserving traditional institutions, customs, and values in the face of rapid social change - I will concede such.
IMO, what you call rigid I operationalize as a skepticism towards radicalism and political extremism. Conservatives share this skepticism, advocating for gradual reform and prudence in governance to avoid unintended consequences and preserve societal stability.
Not to mention, the concept of natural law, articulated by philosophers such as Cicero, provides a philosophical foundation for conservative arguments for moral absolutes and objective standards of justice. We under the conservative pennant, often invoke natural law theory to critique moral relativism and advocate for traditional moral values. I would say it is more pliable than you consider.
Characterizing libertarianism with the likes of “atomised individuals with no connexions or associations of community to each other” is a straw man used endlessly that doesn’t ring true. You mistake a reaction to coercion as a proscription for living. The Civil Rights Act prohibiting the ability to create intentional communities was opposed by libertarians and individualist Republicans, but passed by collectivist Republicans and Democrats.
These 2500 words are excellent and get close to the heart of the matter. I understand. Personally, having been kept before and after puberty in an all-male environment and with only male teachers, plus some military training and much sports, for me it is a nightmare world which drove me to the edge of suicide. I am 100% heterosexual. I came to detest massed male company, i.e. excepted rare individual friendships. My key friendships have been with women, sometimes a generation older. There need not be sexual implications. I have also come to reject wholesale males seeking to possess women, or indeed women seeking to possess males. I detest exclusion. I have been accused of not knowing the meaning of the word jealousy. Forty yrs ago I published an essay which had some impact internationally: Against Couples.
Society has moved on, and much still needs to be adjusted, from one dominated by the male/female divide to one of sovereign individuals seen for themselves. Well worth wider discussion.
Imagine a system of education in which young men are brought together in prayer and taught doctrine, given over to physical training and team sports after studies, and then put into military discipline as they get older. Something like that would work well with the prospective system I outlined in my series on teaching.
The great opportunity to revive the militia was 9/11. 9/11 proved that we cannot rely on dialing 911 in the event of an outlier emergency.
If we hadn't been conditioned to defer to the experts for defense, the 9/11 hijackers would have need more than box cutters to take over planes.
And even today, the alternative to the awful security theater we undergo at airports is to have a large body of civilian air marshals. That is, frequent air travelers who have been vetted and trained to carry weapons on aircraft, but are not paid other than perhaps a small discount on airfare.
...masculine men increasingly do not want to be mistaken for homosexuals, so they withdraw from each other.
I never thought about it that way, but it's absolutely true. Close male friendships are weird. Hanging out with another man one on one is creepy. No wonder men want to kill themselves.
I agree with most of this article. But I still think the militia is insufficient for modern defense because certain crucial roles require highly specialized training and infrastructure. I’m thinking rocket artillery platforms and most modern aircraft.
Great piece of writing! This one is going in the archives!
Great read. However, I stray from your assertion regarding modern conservatism. Rigid? somewhat. If you mean it emphasizes the importance of tradition, stability, and social order. Conservatives draw upon these principles to argue for preserving traditional institutions, customs, and values in the face of rapid social change - I will concede such.
IMO, what you call rigid I operationalize as a skepticism towards radicalism and political extremism. Conservatives share this skepticism, advocating for gradual reform and prudence in governance to avoid unintended consequences and preserve societal stability.
Not to mention, the concept of natural law, articulated by philosophers such as Cicero, provides a philosophical foundation for conservative arguments for moral absolutes and objective standards of justice. We under the conservative pennant, often invoke natural law theory to critique moral relativism and advocate for traditional moral values. I would say it is more pliable than you consider.
Characterizing libertarianism with the likes of “atomised individuals with no connexions or associations of community to each other” is a straw man used endlessly that doesn’t ring true. You mistake a reaction to coercion as a proscription for living. The Civil Rights Act prohibiting the ability to create intentional communities was opposed by libertarians and individualist Republicans, but passed by collectivist Republicans and Democrats.
Nice article but one correction. Women can hunt nowadays so it’s not so masculine anymore.
These 2500 words are excellent and get close to the heart of the matter. I understand. Personally, having been kept before and after puberty in an all-male environment and with only male teachers, plus some military training and much sports, for me it is a nightmare world which drove me to the edge of suicide. I am 100% heterosexual. I came to detest massed male company, i.e. excepted rare individual friendships. My key friendships have been with women, sometimes a generation older. There need not be sexual implications. I have also come to reject wholesale males seeking to possess women, or indeed women seeking to possess males. I detest exclusion. I have been accused of not knowing the meaning of the word jealousy. Forty yrs ago I published an essay which had some impact internationally: Against Couples.
Society has moved on, and much still needs to be adjusted, from one dominated by the male/female divide to one of sovereign individuals seen for themselves. Well worth wider discussion.